This has alreaddy been provein, No it does not make a sound if theres nothing to hear it because, sound is made from sound waves hitting your ear drum creating the sound , so nothing to hear it , no noise.
wow your definition of sound is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard.good job.
what is your definition of a sound wave i hope it has nothing to do with waves carrying sound
sound is not only felt through your ears you can also feel it through vibrations like fireworks for example the vibrations let off by the sound of the explosion shakes the ground so sound has exist without hearing it my girlfriend's deaf cousin could even feel the vibrations
Thats irrelevant question, if the tree falls its just matter of anyone hear it, for it to make a sound. Waves are just oscilations in the density, and pressure of a material, they donīt "carry sound". Sound is a sensation which is experimentated when those same waves pass through our ears. Even if you donīt agree with this, this question will be just a matter of definition of a word, not a philosophical question.
Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
Of course it still makes a sound. Infrared and ultraviolet light exist, but we can't see them. Nor are we equipped to sense, say, radio waves. Just because we can't, or don't know something exists doesn't mean it's not there.
Re: Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
Sound is strictly a perception. The air vibration that is interpreted as sound exists, but if there is no auditory device to intepret this vibration as sound, it is not sound.
The perception of sound is the sense of hearing. Someone would have to hear it in order for it to be classified as sound.
__________________
I am not driven by people s praise and I am not slowed down by people s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. "
I think you will find most dictionaries will carry a similar definition in there.
I am afraid your thinking there is very muddled, and you must consider the very purpose of a noun, the basic element of language. We label any concept there is.
If someone asks what the label that we give is to the vibration we are describing, the answer is simple- the word is sound.
It is how the word is most commonly used, too- to represent the phenomenon itself, not the experience of it, which is simply hearing.
Interestingly, my definition seems to come from the same source as yours. Are you being a tad selective in what you are reading? My one is the primary definition.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Heres a rather wordy primary definition from Collins:
"A periodic disturbance in the pressure or density of a fluid or in the elastic strain of a solid, produced by a vibrating object. It travels as longitudinal waves."
Trips off the tongue nicely, that.
Must be said, physicists who make specific study of sound would be pretty annoyed to hear someone trying to define it as merely the sensation of hearing. They went to all the trouble of discovering the nature of what sound actually is so that the definitions above could be printed in the first place; I am sure they didn't do that simply so people could then try and shift what the word meant.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on May 29th, 2006 at 08:13 PM
How many people are being taken in by this fallacy? Where are people learning this bit of nonsense? Very worrying.
But no, the quesiton is not about definitions at all. Obviously the question is not being pitched with 'sound' meaning 'the hearing of sound', else yes, it WOULD be silly.
The question is using the word 'sound' in a proper way, and simply is an extension of wondering whether stuff actually happens if not observed.
It's silly thinking to think otherwise, in my opinion. If you are going to be that sceptical about all we know about physics as to be unsure if the sound actually occurs if no-one is there to hear it, then I am not sure on what grounds you think the sound is there if someone IS there to hear it. Once you are that sceptical, why even trust your senses?
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
soundn. Auditory sensation evoked by oscillation in a medium with internal forces.
soundn. The auditory perception of a pressure disturbance propagated through a medium and displacing molecules from a state of equilibrium; Something heard by the ears.
soundn. The hearing sensation excited by a physical disturbance in a medium.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 19th, 2005 05:14 AM
